- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:05:52 +0200
- To: "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Alex Rousskov > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 6:20 PM > To: Julian Reschke > Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: IE vs vary header > > > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > I think if I mark them as un-cacheable, the *same* problem in IE > > will occur -- it fails to pass content to external applications if > > it decides that the content is not cacheable (their logic is: we > > pass data to external programs by caching it, but the response > > headers indicate that the result isn't cacheable, thus we can't > > pass it on -- funny, isn't it?). > > You may be able to mark them with "Cache-Control: private" to avoid > the above problem. Also, as somebody suggested to me off-list, you can > try a must-revalidate cache-control directive so that the content is > cachable by shared caches but the server has some control based on > client request headers. The latter option requires must-revalidate > support in caches and may cause the same IE problems you mention > above; simple but not a very robust solution. Alex, this was actually a very good suggestion -- for some reason *this* is accepted by IE. (It's really time that MS starts listening to reports about serious bugs). Julian
Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 03:06:25 UTC